Re: SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking Mycroft > wrote:
> Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that for a
> living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth, they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

[Dick Locke]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:07:47 +0100, "Oelewapper" >
wrote:

>Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying on Iraq - on BBC radio:
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram
>
>
>Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!
>
Finally listened to it. American interviewers could take a large
lesson in how to aggressively interview government officials. So could
our government officials take a lesson in being more open.

Or maybe it's just the BBC English that impresses Americans....;-)

[Jarg]

> wrote in message ...
> In rec.food.cooking Mycroft > wrote:
> > Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
for a
> > living but are not supposed to get caught!
>
> It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
they get
> voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to
what
> happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

Jarg

[devil]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
>> In rec.food.cooking Mycroft > wrote:
>> > Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
> for a
>> > living but are not supposed to get caught!
>>
>> It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
> they get
>> voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to
> what
>> happens when you run a truthful political campaign.
>
> You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
> nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
> lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
> judge his presidency kindly.

He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under
control required.

[Warchild]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
m...
> > wrote in message
...
> > In rec.food.cooking Mycroft > wrote:
> > > Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
> for a
> > > living but are not supposed to get caught!
> >
> > It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
> they get
> > voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest
to
> what
> > happens when you run a truthful political campaign.
>
> You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
> nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
> lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
> judge his presidency kindly.
>
> Jarg
>

History looks at Jimmy Carter very kindly. As for his presidency, I don't
think that history will give it much thought, as it wasn't noted for
war-mongering and personal scandals. Certainly he had his problems to
overcome, like the hostage crisis, but he had his successes, like Camp
David.

[Jarg]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:
>
..
>
> He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under
> control required.
>
>

I'm not sure many economists would concur withh your views about the
necessity of a recession to control inflation. Certainly in other times
inflation has been controlled without recession. In any case, that was only
one reason he lost the election. You are overlooking his foreign policy
failures, the Iran hostage crisis and Afghanistan for example. Nice enough
man but he exuded impotence.

Jarg

[devil]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:14:53 +0000, Jarg wrote:

> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:
>>
> .
>>
>> He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under
>> control required.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure many economists would concur withh your views about the
> necessity of a recession to control inflation. Certainly in other times
> inflation has been controlled without recession.

I have not heard many negative reports of Volcker's time at the feds.
Reagan could not do better than keep him.

As to wishful thinking, besides indluging in voodoo thing, it's not clear
to me that in the circumstances, inflation could have been brought under
control except by shock therapy. Massive increase in interest rates.

> In any case, that was only
> one reason he lost the election. You are overlooking his foreign policy
> failures, the Iran hostage crisis and Afghanistan for example. Nice enough
> man but he exuded impotence.

The dirty trick that Reagan played with Iran helped too. But at the end
of the day, the perception that the economy was terrible did it.

[Stark Raven]

In article >, Jarg
> wrote:

> You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
> nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
> lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
> judge his presidency kindly.
>
> Jarg
>
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

[nobody]

Stark Raven wrote:
> Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
> We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
> unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything real done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm during that
time period.

[Tarver Engineering]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Stark Raven wrote:
> > Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
> > We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
> > unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.
>
> You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
> agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
> considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real done.

It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.

[Jerry Johnson]

>> Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
>> that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!

> It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
> truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
> Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
> political campaign.

Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even his
strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability to make
decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most intelligent president
of the 20th century. But he was also one in which making no decision
was often considered a viable option. Circumstances which were unacceptable
to the voters of 1980.

The problem in Iraq may well be that even after all the dots were
connected, these did not lead to the expected outcome. Consider that Saddam
had used a particularly nasty nerve gas to kill several thousand Kurdish
citizens, and that the research by Iraq in chemical and biological weapons
was well known - even to the UN. And that lacking any such weapons, there
would have been little reason to keep UN Inspectors out of the country for
four years.

And also note that the popular media plays up the WMD subject (and at
least once every hour on NPR) but has little to say about the thousands of
graves which have been unearthed. Or that the entire population in a
number of towns were discovered to be exterminated.

[Michel Boucher]

(Jerry Johnson) wrote in
om:

>>> Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
>>> that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!
>
>> It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
>> truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
>> Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
>> political campaign.
>
> Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even
> his strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability
> to make decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most
> intelligent president of the 20th century. But he was also one in
> which making no decision was often considered a viable option.
> Circumstances which were unacceptable to the voters of 1980.

The problem with being intelligent is seeing many options. Stupid
people can make quick decisions because they can be fooled into
accepting simple dictums like "Saddam is evil" or "45 minutes to use
of WMDs". A thoughtful and considerate President of the Untied
States (from one who lives next door) was a refreshing and welcome
change; we liked Carter, we still do. He's welcome at my house any
day.

And just for the record, it would still be a welcome change if it
were to happen again, but they say lightning doesn't strike the same
place twice. Too bad.

:-)))

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

[john]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:35:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"nobody" > wrote in message
...
>> Stark Raven wrote:
>> > Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
>> > We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
>> > unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.
>>
>> You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
>peace
>> agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
>> considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
>real done.
>
>It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.
>

How many billions will it cost per year to make Iraq a democracy if it
it even possible?

[john]

On 6 Feb 2004 13:17:10 -0800, (Jerry Johnson)
wrote:

>>> Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do
>>> that for a living but are not supposed to get caught!
>
>> It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the
>> truth, they get voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts.
>> Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
>> political campaign.
>
> Carter's problem was not honesty, but being indecisive. And even his
>strongest supporters recognized that Carter lacked the ability to make
>decisions. He may one day be regarded as the most intelligent president
>of the 20th century. But he was also one in which making no decision
>was often considered a viable option. Circumstances which were unacceptable
>to the voters of 1980.
>
> The problem in Iraq may well be that even after all the dots were
>connected, these did not lead to the expected outcome. Consider that Saddam
>had used a particularly nasty nerve gas to kill several thousand Kurdish
>citizens, and that the research by Iraq in chemical and biological weapons
>was well known - even to the UN. And that lacking any such weapons, there
>would have been little reason to keep UN Inspectors out of the country for
>four years.
>
> And also note that the popular media plays up the WMD subject (and at
>least once every hour on NPR) but has little to say about the thousands of
>graves which have been unearthed. Or that the entire population in a
>number of towns were discovered to be exterminated.


Now what country will Bush invade to SAVE the people of that nation
from living under a terrible leader?

North Korea?

Zimbawe?

Any of half a dozen other nations in Africa?

[Michel Boucher]

john > wrote in
:

> Now what country will Bush invade to SAVE the people of that
> nation from living under a terrible leader?
>
> North Korea?
>
> Zimbawe?

Florida? :-)

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

[Tarver Engineering]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> m...
> > > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
> subjective
> > nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
He
> > lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
not
> > judge his presidency kindly.
>
> Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
> always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
> betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...

Actually, it was the Israeli seeling Pentagon arms from their $3 billion a
year in freebies that enabled Irqn-Contra.

[Stark Raven]

In article >, nobody >
wrote:

> Stark Raven wrote:
> > Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
> > We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
> > unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.
>
> You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting peace
> agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
> considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything real
> done.
>
> A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help steer it,
> but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered it
> sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
> direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to Bush
> as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
> direction over his whole stay at the white house)
>
> As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at the 1980
> elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm during that
> time period.

I agreed totally with what you say. And if Presidencies were judged by
their "steering" then Carter's quarterback rating will be near-
perfect. He just didn't have any receivers worth a twit. And those who
say he was an impotent President probably needed a little viagra
themselves. You know pot calling kettle noir, etc.

[Jarg]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> m...
> > > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
> subjective
> > nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
He
> > lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
not
> > judge his presidency kindly.
>
> Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
> always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
> betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...

Which betrayal would that be? The hostages were released on Reagan's
inauguration day. Coincidence. I doubt it. The Iranians knew Reagan would
take real action. That is only one demonstration of Carter's weaknesses.

Carter was,
> and is, a well informed and opinionated man, who took a lot of positive,
> daring decisions and who was very well informed (he disposed over the
> intellectual skills required for the job) about world affairs - unlike
later
> presidents such as Bill Clinton, who failed to see the warning signals on
> the deployment of nuclear capabilitiy (testing that is) by the Pakistani
> junta - which had just kicked out the democratically elected govt. in
> Pakistan - and George Bush, who turned coup-leader Musharaf into one of
his
> top allies in his war for democracy and freedom, and in his quest to find
> Osama in his cave, as well as in the so-called 'war on terror' against
> terrorists, against people who hate freedom, against people who hate
America
> or hate people who love freedom, and against anyone who is "not with us" -
> such as the countries of the so-called 'axis of evil'.

Carter was no doubt intelligent, may have had a grasp of the issues, but
nonetheless was an inept leader.

Meanwhile of course,
> Dr. Kahn and his nuclear buddies in the pakistani military - not in the
> least Gen. Musharaf himself - have been the biggest perpetrators of
> WMD-proliferation in the history of mankind, exporting all kinds of
nuclear
> and other WMD technology to countries like North-Korea. Apparently, the
> whole WMD proliferation issue was not about Iraq, as Saddam did not have
any
> WMD, but instead the whole problem was with Pakistan, Bush's close ally in
> the war on terror, which has been exporting the stuff to "axis of evil"
> countries like Iran and N-Korea...

Which has nothing to do with Carter's failed presidency.

>
> So how is it that Carter was such a failure, and that W. Bush is such a
> success in the strive for a more human/humane/humanistic and peaceful
world
> and in America's strive for "world peace", solidarity, 'compassion',
freedom
> and prosperity ???
>
> As far as I can see, GWB is nothing else than the wrong answer for the
wrong\

Perhaps you aren't seeing clearly then.

> questions.
> At least Jimmy Carter got the questions right.
>

So what? He was an awful leader.

Jarg

[Jarg]

"Stark Raven" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, nobody >
> wrote:
>
> > Stark Raven wrote:
> > > Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
> > > We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
> > > unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.
> >
> > You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
> > agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
> > considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real
> > done.
> >
> > A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help
steer it,
> > but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered
it
> > sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
> > direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to
Bush
> > as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
> > direction over his whole stay at the white house)
> >
> > As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at
the 1980
> > elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm
during that
> > time period.
>
> I agreed totally with what you say. And if Presidencies were judged by
> their "steering" then Carter's quarterback rating will be near-
> perfect. He just didn't have any receivers worth a twit.

Part of his job was to pick competent help. Just another of his many
failures.

And those who
> say he was an impotent President probably needed a little viagra
> themselves. You know pot calling kettle noir, etc.

I doubt Viagra would have helped him in the way it helps you. His impotence
was a result of personality and philosophy.

Jarg

[john]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:03:45 GMT, "Jarg" >
wrote:

>"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jarg" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> > > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
>> subjective
>> > nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign.
>He
>> > lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will
>not
>> > judge his presidency kindly.
>>
>> Well at least, Carter got a couple of things right, eventhough he couldn't
>> always influence on or interfere in events, such as the cowardly national
>> betrayal by Ronald Reagan during the Iran-hostages crisis...
>
>Which betrayal would that be? The hostages were released on Reagan's
>inauguration day. Coincidence. I doubt it. The Iranians knew Reagan would
>take real action. That is only one demonstration of Carter's weaknesses.
>
snipped

Why were they released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.

[Jarg]

"john" > wrote in message > Why were they
released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
> Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
> release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.

Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any indication
I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.

Care to prove this one?

Jarg

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "john" > wrote in message > Why were they
> released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
> > Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
> > release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.
>
> Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any
indication
> I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.
>
> Care to prove this one?

That conspiracy features an SR-71 trip by GHWB.

Quite hillarious.

[john]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:12:42 GMT, "Jarg" >
wrote:

>
>"john" > wrote in message > Why were they
>released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
>> Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
>> release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.
>
>Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any indication
>I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.
>
>Care to prove this one?
>
>Jarg
>

http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush69.html

[Jarg]

"john" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:12:42 GMT, "Jarg" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"john" > wrote in message > Why were
they
> >released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
> >> Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
> >> release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.
> >
> >Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any
indication
> >I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.
> >
> >Care to prove this one?
> >
> >Jarg
> >
>
> http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush69.html


I particularly like the Written by "Anonymous."

I can also find web pages swearing to that Elvis and Hitler are alive,
aliens are among us, Jackie shot JFK, etc. Just because something has been
written doesn't mean it is credible. The ability to distinguish between
good and bad information is a very useful skill, but one you have not yet
demonstrated.

Jarg

[john]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:31:28 GMT, "Jarg" >
wrote:

>
>"john" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:12:42 GMT, "Jarg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"john" > wrote in message > Why were
>they
>> >released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
>> >> Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
>> >> release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.
>> >
>> >Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any
>indication
>> >I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.
>> >
>> >Care to prove this one?
>> >
>> >Jarg
>> >
>>
>> http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush69.html
>
>
>I particularly like the Written by "Anonymous."
>
>I can also find web pages swearing to that Elvis and Hitler are alive,
>aliens are among us, Jackie shot JFK, etc. Just because something has been
>written doesn't mean it is credible. The ability to distinguish between
>good and bad information is a very useful skill, but one you have not yet
>demonstrated.
>
>Jarg
>

Get your freaken head out of the sand.

So you don't believe the Iran-Contra scandal?

So you don't believe that North and Poindexter were convicted of
crimes for there leadership in this scandal?

[Nik]

"devil" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:14:53 +0000, Jarg wrote:

>
> The dirty trick that Reagan played with Iran helped too. But at the end
> of the day, the perception that the economy was terrible did it.

Honestly I never understood why Regan was so incredible popular in the US.
He left the Federal economy in such a bad shape that it took the present
president to do worse. And still people from the US I have met get tears
running out their eyes when his name is mentioned. Beyond my comprehension!


Nik

[Michel Boucher]

"Nik" > wrote in
:

> Honestly I never understood why Regan was so incredible popular in
> the US. He left the Federal economy in such a bad shape that it
> took the present president to do worse. And still people from the
> US I have met get tears running out their eyes when his name is
> mentioned. Beyond my comprehension!

As an outside observer, all I can say is that it seems irrational.
Some in this group have even made claims for Reagan that he was an
economist and that it was he in person who "destroyed kamminizum",
not the state of the world at the time.

Republicans tend to view their presidents as demigods from the moment
they step into office. No matter what damage the incumbent wreaks
upon humanity, that's ok by them. They'll even claim that these
people are representatives of the common man. An actor, a very rich
man who ran the CIA and his idiot son...these are their
representatives of the common man. Good luck!

Democrats prefer to elect more human persons with flaws and foibles
that make them interesting. But when a Democrat is in office (and
even afterwards), the Republicans will do everything they can to
revile him, talk about the size of his wife's behind (as though that
was a policy statement) and indulge in the basest ad hominems.

It is an observable fact that left of the right-wing government are
more fiscally responsible, but Republicans refuse to believe that and
blame Democrats for the damage the previous Republican did. And they
even push the limits of good taste by calling the theft of an
election "winning an election".

I'm so happy I don't live there...believe me.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking Nik > wrote:

> Honestly I never understood why Regan was so incredible popular in the US.
> He left the Federal economy in such a bad shape that it took the present
> president to do worse. And still people from the US I have met get tears
> running out their eyes when his name is mentioned. Beyond my comprehension!

I agree, and I live in the states. Still, if you're referring to the president
who preceded George H. W. Bush, his name is "Reagan."

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking Tarver Engineering > wrote:

> "nobody" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stark Raven wrote:
>> > Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
>> > We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
>> > unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.
>>
>> You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
> peace
>> agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
>> considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
> real done.

> It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.

Do you have any cites for that claim?

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking Oelewapper > wrote:

> So how is it that Carter was such a failure, and that W. Bush is such a
> success in the strive for a more human/humane/humanistic and peaceful world
> and in America's strive for "world peace", solidarity, 'compassion', freedom
> and prosperity ???

Not enough time has passed for history to judge GWB's reign, but I suspect history
will look very poorly on Bush's presidency.

> As far as I can see, GWB is nothing else than the wrong answer for the wrong
> questions.
> At least Jimmy Carter got the questions right.

Exactly. And just look at the elder Bush. While Carter is spending his life in
service to other people, the elder Bush is jumping out of airplanes. Who's the
better man?

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
> In rec.food.cooking Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
> > "nobody" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Stark Raven wrote:
> >> > Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly
on.
> >> > We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
> >> > unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.
> >>
> >> You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long
lasting
> > peace
> >> agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
> >> considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
> > real done.
>
> > It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.
>
> Do you have any cites for that claim?

See the Camp David Accords.